MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070925175 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2011.2166090

Workforce Planning for Power Restoration: An Integrated Simulation-Optimization Approach

2011· article· en· W2070925175 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nima Safaei, Dragan Banjević, Andrew Jardine

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewWorkforceDuration (music)ElectricityWork (physics)Operations researchElectric power systemOperations managementMains electricityWorkforce planningComputer sciencePower (physics)Reliability engineeringEngineeringEconomicsElectrical engineeringVoltageAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an integrated simulation-optimization approach is proposed for annual planning of power restoration workforce related to an electricity distribution company in a province of Canada. Internal and external workforces are employed to perform maintenance actions and restore power after interruptions throughout the province. According to the electricity distribution network, the province is divided into a number of work locations (WL), each having local crews to perform maintenance actions and fix power interruptions. However, determining the size of the crew in each WL over the year is challenging because of high fluctuation in interruption frequency and consequently in projected demand during the year. The frequency of interruptions is affected by various factors such as geographical location, time calendar, and particularly weather conditions. The objective is to determine the optimal combination of internal and external workforce over the year to cover the interruptions across the province with minimum cost and minimum customer interruption duration.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicPower System Reliability and MaintenanceFrench-language works237,207